See also

Under all projected future scenarios, nuclear energy will be powering us in the future. This puts Australia in a very good position.

THE SMALL NUMBER OF Australians vehemently opposed to uranium mining and nuclear power are obviously not avid readers nor weight-lifters.

If they were they would have seen the International Energy Agency's enormous 687-page, two-kilogram report on the world's energy outlook released last month. It should be compulsory reading for those who think Australia's uranium industry and nuclear power has a bleak future.

The IEA lays out three scenarios for the growth in emissions-free nuclear power across the globe over the next quarter of a century and all are stellar for nuclear energy.

The first scenario — which has current energy and climate change policies continuing into the future — shows a 51 per cent increase for nuclear power generation from 2011 to 2035.

The second scenario — which takes into account potential new policies to mitigate climate change — has nuclear power increasing by 66 per cent.

And in the final scenario — which assumes the world takes radical action on climate change — nuclear power generation increases by 126 per cent.

In any of the three scenarios, nuclear power is only going one way and that's up, which is terrific news for Australia.

This country is home to more uranium that any other. About 31 per cent of the world's known reserves are found here.

We have a massive natural advantage in resource endowment and, despite the over blown rhetoric of the industry's ideological opponents, an enviable health and safety track record.

More than 10,000 containers of uranium concentrate have been exported from Australia over more than 30 years without incident.

We are geographically located near the fast growing energy markets in Asia where most of the 60 nuclear power plants currently under construction are located.

These fast developing economies will soon join nations like France, Canada, the United States and others where nuclear power has been providing cheap energy to homes and businesses for decades. There are 430 nuclear reactors operating in these countries right now.

Strange bedfellows

It's becoming so mainstream that nuclear energy is now drawing support from a wide-array of traditionally unhappy bedfellows.

The Australian Worker's Union is now in the same camp as conservative Republicans in the United States in their support for nuclear energy. Even the sector's former bitter enemies, like environmentalist Ben Heard from the Thinkclimate group in Adelaide, have actively embraced nuclear power.

These developments leave the remaining anti-nuclear campaigners completely out of step with the mainstream.

There is no doubt current market conditions pose short term challenges for uranium miners, developers and explorers. These conditions have more to do with the state of the global economy than other factors. These economic problems will pass.

As the IEA growth forecasts and the growing consensus on nuclear energy shows, the industry's opponents are being over-run by the inexorable economics of the world's energy needs.

The simple fact is the world is going to need all sources of power to meet the world's growing electricity demands. We are going to need nuclear, coal, gas and renewables in the years ahead.

The world is already at 7 billion people and on track for 9 billion by 2050. Well over 1 billion people today have little or no access to affordable electricity. As Bill Gates says "if you could pick just one thing…to reduce poverty — by far you would pick energy".

And Australia has the chance to be front and centre of meeting that challenge.

It is not hard to work out why the future of nuclear energy and uranium mining is assured — it is affordable zero emissions base load energy that is readily available to help drive growth and economic prosperity around the world.

Daniel Zavattiero is executive director of Uranium for the Minerals Council of Australia.

Actions

Share

Comments (92)

Comments for this story are closed. No new comments can be added.

aussie in japan ®:

13 Jan 2014 2:00:11pm

This statement is short sighted. The long term costs associated with nuclear power are such that it is simply inconceivable that it be developed. In a country with huge solar intake and hence the potential to produce vast amounts of energy it is vital for our future that it be exploited. It is about time we got our heads out of the ground and looked towards the sun. It is about time we started realised that power does not need to come from huge buildings. It has already been shown that much of our power can come from our roofs.

Glenn :

13 Jan 2014 12:02:08pm

"emissions-free nuclear power" ?

I bet there are a few thousand displaced people in Russia and Japan who would disagree with that statement?

Its true nuclear power does not emit green house gases, that's a plus, but you can not call nuclear clear or emission free. The waste product is very dangerous and toxic for hundreds of years, and accidents do happen, with long lasting effects.

Stephen :

09 Jan 2014 3:11:37pm

India is in the midst of developing PPA's for nuclear and can't get offers below $0.15 USD / kWh and this for generation only. Delivery of the power adds to that so the retail cost would be at least double that figure.

Solar is currently being installed globally at less than $0.10 / kWh, recent large projects in South Africa were bid at $0.08 /kWh.

Discover4yourself by looking :

09 Jan 2014 12:29:49pm

Many authors take a different, more realistic and sustainable view. E.g. "Fate of the Earth" by Jonathon Schell.Vital reading if you're of the uranium-approving persuasion, or yet to be persuaded.Decommissioning costs can not be accurately predicted, often blowing out past double the industry predictions, making them astronomical. Considering just this one aspect, makes swill of the pro-nuclear argument.

SM :

08 Jan 2014 4:56:23pm

What an unfortunate and arrogant piece of writing. There is now no part of the northern hemisphere where the ground has not been contaminated by airborne radiation from Fukushima, which is a disaster of many time magnitude worse than Chernoble. The Pacific Ocean is probably not big enough to contain the effects of radioactive water currently being dumped into it, and if there is one mistake in the removal of fuel rods from the reactor, Japan and much of the norther hemisphere will be rendered uninhabitable. It is not possible to contain the risks associated with nuclear energy. Commercial media and Government Authorities seem unable to bring themselves to report the truth of this matter, and the sooner the world weans itself away from reliance on nuclear energy, the greater the chance of our grandchildren enjoying a normal, healthy life.

Dave78 :

08 Jan 2014 5:28:16am

Uranium is not the only nuclear fuel.

Thorium molten salt reactors are impervious to meltdown and totally safe. The only reason the government is not investing in this technology is because we have a lot of uranium to mine. Thorium is far more abundant also.

Involving heavy metals this waste is both highly toxic and bio-accumulative, that's before you consider its radioactivity.

To give you an idea of the radiation danger involved with misplaced waste / emissions from the nuclear industry you only need to wiki nuclear fatalities, you'll note that several multiple death / mass injury events have occurred around the handling of very small amounts of radioactive wastes (often less than one kilogram involved, for example the 1987 Goiania theft of a single radiotherapy source, 4 confirmed deaths, at least 249 people heavily irradiated, thousands of others affected).

If this article's "everyone's doing it so jump on board" approach were to be followed and nuclear energy were to become the predominant powersource we would be producing at least 100,000 tons of highly radioactive waste per year to meet current demand. And as the article notes, demand for power is set to increase dramatically.

This only considers the end product waste, it does not consider the heavy metal / radioactive particulate, and other pollution produced during mining, transport, refining, enrichment, and use. (how many olympic dam spills have we had now?)

The beauty of the CO2 cycle is that it is a chemical cycle. The fact that CO2 is already present in the atmosphere in vast quantities buffers us against imbalance in production of CO2 waste and its refixation. Compared to highly toxic, bio-accumulative, non-degradable, radioactive emissions / waste it doesn't take much sense to see that what is cheap is not always worth buying.

suzuiq :

Paul :

06 Jan 2014 9:23:28am

Nuclear power – it's not worth the risk. Look at what happened at Fukushima. To say nothing of the cleanup of Reactor 3 which has hardly even begun. That place will be a nuclear wasteland for decades if not centuries or even millenia to come. To say nothing of the BILLIONS of dollars it will take to make it safe. I don't want Australia to run that kind of risk. We have enough sunlight falling on this country every day to power the entire country and then some. We should be investing in developing ways of making solar a baseload power generator.

Big Nev :

04 Jan 2014 3:50:19am

I can see the advantages of nuclear for generating electricity and other energy uses, however no one seems to be able to work out what to do with the waste. With the (relatively) few operational plants currently in place we have stockpiles of spent fuel rods and no agreed safe way to dispose of them. I am interested to hear from those lobbying for growth in the nuclear energy industry as to what they propose to do with the expected rapid growth in waste?

Phil Best :

03 Jan 2014 11:53:34am

Yes debate over nuclear power is very important and primarily it needs to be understood that the very old technology used in Japan has no relationship on the current technology systems being constructed now. Here in Brisbane in Summer it is difficult to understand how bitterly cold some places are and how this needs huge base-load grunt power.However in the warmer climates, it is important for everybody to know that in an effort to reduce carbon pollution there are three additional steps that everybody can take themselves, which they might not have realized.1. The roof color of buildings and vehicles has a huge effect on their energy consumption in summer in hot areas. In keeping a building or car cool there is simply no substitute to preventing the heat from entering the building in the first place. Once it actually gets inside the game is over and a reactive cooling response such as air conditioning is needed. There is zero research available on the effects of reflective and tropical roofs. Yes insulation helps however wool types are a simple heat storage system and prevent the building from cooling down in the evenings. Yes, in theory, a city built with reflective roofs would reflect a huge amount of heat back out into space. No Houses should not be built on hot areas with black or blue roofs, yet sometimes we see entire housing estates built with these roof colors.2. The next wost problem is in winter with hot water heating. It is very expensive to heat water, however in many places the hot water storage cylinder is relegated to either the outside of the building or a cold basement because of a lack of space and the possibility of a water leak. But the insulation provided inside the cylinder is extremely thin because they like to keep the dimensions tight. The end result is that massive amounts of energy is lost through the water storage cylinder walls in winter. In countries like Canada they provide insulation jackets but not here in Australia, plus there are no waterproof outdoor storage cylinder insulation jackets available anywhere in the world (that we could find).3. The next worst problem is the inefficiency with old or worn out motor vehicles. When the engines are worn they become much less efficient and the pollution increases, there are some countries where there is classic evidence of this problem. Yet there are hybrid and pure electric vehicles which are very effective and economic for city driving. I have friends who have an all electric car and solar panels on their roof, so they personally emit virtually zero carbon.

Rodney :

03 Jan 2014 10:02:25am

Nuclear energy is limited by the availability of commercial uranium. It is predicted that the industry has a life of 200 years only. Everyone overlooks how short term this industry is. QUOTE (" Current usage is about 68,000 tU/yr. Thus the world's present measured resources of uranium (5.3 Mt) in the cost category around present spot prices and used only in conventional reactors, are enough to last for about 80 years. This represents a higher level of assured resources than is normal for most minerals. Further exploration and higher prices will certainly, on the basis of present geological knowledge, yield further resources as present ones are used up. http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Nuclear-Fuel-Cycle/Uranium-Resources/Supply-of-Uranium/ " With the resultant waste having a a half life of 500,000 years and being so toxic ultimately the source of power will have to swing back to renewable energy. May as well swallow the bitter pill and start building some large scale renewable / solar/ sea/ hydro/ thermal powers sources now. I can only forsee nuclear plants as being targets of destruction and then our future generations will be dealing with Japans' current issue on a global level.

richard schumacher :

04 Jan 2014 3:49:36am

All of the high-level nuclear power waste created to date would fit inside a football stadium. After a few hundred years the waste is no more radioactive than the original ore.

Breeding increases the effective amount of uranium fuel by as much as 8x because it converts the high-level waste into fuel and consumes it. But far better to shift to a thorium fuel cycle; Earth has thousands of year's worth of thorium even without breeding, and as a bonus it nearly eliminates the capacity for weaponization.

Earth needs all of the non-carbon energy sources that we can bring to bear, including wind, Solar, and safe clean nuclear. The world cannot afford any more ignorance and dilettantism about nuclear power. Environmental and economic justice both require it.

MD :

03 Jan 2014 8:34:48am

"The small number of Australians who are vehemently opposed". . Let's ask them whether they'd prefer to live close to a wind or tidal farm or a reactor and gauge their vehemence.. Your first sentence is confection of unsubstantiated assertion, what hope for the rest?

ziggy :

31 Dec 2013 1:04:18pm

I love nuclear radiation !.. I would personally prefer to be a 150 million odd kilometres from the source... At that distance I can wear the appropriate PPE to reduce the hazards...Physicists have learnt to release energy from earth bound elements using techniques devised by men like Einstein.... Einstein is often quoted as saying something about nuclear fission being one hell of a way to boil water... I believe he was eminently qualified to make such a statement... I believe he was saying that it could be done ... but was possibly not the best use of the technology and even he was unsure of the long term consequences.... He was aware of much simpler and safer ways to boil water... Water can be turned into steam in many ways that are far safer than using nuclear fission and the steam driven turbines can spin electrical generators safely pumping power into the power grids...All safe and proven technologies.. Australia has many things that "could" be sold to other countries. The fact that other countries could supply these things doesn't mean that we are obligated to beat the countries to the dollar prize... Miners are great at digging and drilling... Why don't the miners use their skills to pipe the water down to the stored heat in the earths crust and boil water that way... Proven technology again .. It seems it is all about easy money to the miners... Destroying the environment and shipping the dirt to other countries makes a great short term profit and seems much easier to the miners ...than using their drilling technology to really improve peoples lives through things like geothermal power. Technology exists to sequester carbon dioxide from combustion , but it is make no money for the miners.

DavidR :

02 Jan 2014 2:51:20pm

Ziggy,You may prefer to get your radiation from the sun, however I trust you are aware that more people die from sun radiation every year in Australia than have been killed by peaceful uses of Nuclear energy world wide in the past 100 years. There are many ways to boil water, the question is what is the most cost effective and safest way of replacing the use of fossil fuels to boil water and fuel vehicles. Currently, Nuclear is significantly cheaper and safer according to the independent studies that have investigated the matter.

bonzono :

More people die from radiation from the sun… and apparently that means that solar power is unviable?

cough..

Since safey seems to be your kingpin point, here is what the insurance companies have to say about insuring a reactor:

"The conclusions of the study are rather startling, with damage estimates varying from a minimum of 150 billion euros to a maximum of around 6 trillion euros. It states that “the calculated sum which would have to be made available in case of a nuclear disaster is 6.09 trillion euros."

Sounds like a scale of potential damage akin to a civil war.

safe? erm.. not in this parallel universe. maybe in yours though.

but okay, you insist independent studies have investigated the matter - cite them.

Helen :

02 Jan 2014 9:17:25pm

It is good that you love radiation because you live in a sea of it. You cannot be 150 million miles from it, while you are being irradiated now by uranium and thorium in the bricks in your house, while you are breathing radon that is always seeping from the earth beneath your feet, and while your body contains radioactive potassium.

And while at a simplistic level power plants simply boil water, nuclear power remains the safest proven method - resulting in the lowest by far mortality per kWh of energy produced. Even compared to solar power.

And whilst it may seem simple to suggest that miners simply turn their talents to geothermal energy, be aware - R&D into hot rock geothermal energy in Australia reveals that it is difficult, expensive, dangerous and environmentally damaging. Look it up, do some research, before declaring geothermal energy as the answer to all our energy needs.

Best to stick to tried and proven, safe and clean nuclear power. And in the future consider the even safer thorium and fast breeder technologies, enough energy t last the world for millennia. The future looks very bright indeed.

Phil Best :

03 Jan 2014 12:00:25pm

Geothermal Electricity generation systems are being developed in Australia and I believe that one pilot system is already running. Several other sites have been identified where the hot rocks lie reasonably close to the surface and their are also within reach of existing power feed lines.The main difficulty is drilling a 300mm hole down into the really super hot areas where steam can be generated, however every year their technology is improving in this regard and by the end of this decade there will be much more publicity.

Simon :

30 Dec 2013 11:11:40pm

Nuclear power is only viable via massive subsidies from governmentsOne reactor will take at least 10 years to come onlineDuring construction huge amounts of emissions are releasedMining and enriching uranium is very energy intensiveUranium is not a renewable resourceNo solution for the waste has been found to date

Could go on for a while here, the point is this:

Invest the $$$ you would into just a single nuclear plant into wind/tidal/solar and Australia could be leading from the front exporting knowledge and technolgy to the world

Of course there will always be support from those who profit from mining, concrete and centralized power production, the question is do we follow or do we lead?

Physicist :

Simon, Nuc energy is a real mid-term solution to the world's power needs. Additionally:

nuclear power generation can in fact be a 'renewable' energy sources, breeder reactors have proven this.

mining of uranium is no more energy intensive than any other mineral extraction process, and less energy intensive than producing solar panels.

the installation of tidal power stations and similar also have unknown impacts on the environment.

Yes, I am nuclear power 'pro', my biggest concern is that our governments are not mature enough to regulate the nuc industry - then push for relaxation of red and green tape - both a real requirement for this industry' and tout that the private sector can do the job best - this is where cost cutting etc comes in at the expense of safety. Get reliable government and really consider nuclear power for the near future!

Ace21 :

06 Jan 2014 6:27:01pm

Wrong - Nuclear 66 gr of carbon dioxide equivalent per kilowatt-hour (CO2e/kWh). Solar photovoltaic - 32 gCO2e/kWh, Onshore wind-farms - 10 gCO2e/kWh. Uranium ore is hard to come by, and as the quality declines more energy is required to mine and mill it. Nuclear is just another dead end, like fossil fuels and we should be looking at Solar and Wind and energy efficiency. For every dollar you spend on Nuclear you will save five or six times as much with a combination of wind and efficiency. Then there is the costs. $3b for 1000 megawatts and 10 years to construct 1 plant, and this will be heavily subsidised by the tax payer. No thank you!

Hoju :

08 Jan 2014 6:22:29pm

I can't comment on the environmental impacts of tidal power stations but it has been demonstrated that, in the case of one company's wave energy technology (that I won't name), it acts as an artificial reef, not only attracting sealife but increasing biodiversity also.

DavidR :

02 Jan 2014 2:26:39pm

Simon,The claims you make about nuclear power are not supported by the evidence.We are already investing far more than the cost of a single nuclear power plant in wind/solar/tidal and we are not leading from the front. We are in fact still fighting a rear guard action against the extreme right wing who consider all action to avert global warming a waste of money. However the cost of the electricity produced by these technologies is still way higher than the expected cost from Nuclear. We should now start actively developing Nuclear power to replace our ageing fossil fuel infrastructure. By 2050 we could easily replace all our fossil fuel emissions from electricity generation and most of our transport uses making a massive contribution to reducing our overall emissions. As these power stations could be run commercially there is no reason for a significant government subsidy. We should set a goal of eliminating ALL fossil fuel power stations and actively decommission the most polluting ones once replacement nuclear power is available.By demanding the immediate the use of renewables which are still significantly more expensive than nuclear, the anti nuclear lobby are contributing to global warming as effectively as the coal industry.

John :

03 Jan 2014 4:21:31pm

Only those in the nuclear industry or believe those in that industry are saying that renewables cost more than nuclear.

The cost of producing solar energy fell below that of producing nuclear energy in 2010 and has been continuing to fall since then. http://www.ncwarn.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/NCW-SolarReport_final1.pdf

As nuclear is now the more expensive option to solar I see no need to invest in making more nuclear reactors.

Greig :

03 Jan 2014 12:51:48pm

Simon,

All power generation systems are government subsidised to some degree. To declare nuclear power as a special case whilst promoting renewables is nonsensical, since solar/wind/tidal consume more subsidies per kWh than any other technologies.

Whilst a 1000MW reactor might take 10 years to come online, to build a similar capacity in renewable energy would also take a long time and cost more. It is possible to build many nuclear plants in parallel (as the French did in the 1960s) and so build a very large long-term low-emission baseload infrastructure in only a few decades. The same is not possible with renewables which require large ecological footprint and all new distribution infrastructure.

During construction emissions are released by renewables, and several studies have shown that emissions from construction and fuelling of nuclear power plants is actually lower than the equivalent for solar and wind power.

Whilst uranium is not a renewable resource, it can nevertheless be recycled and provide low emissions energy for millenia by using IFRs (fast breeders) which is proven technology. In this way most of the existing waste is consumed as fuel, and what little remains can be buried safely - it is a myth that nuclear waste disposal is an unsolved problem (see Forsmark waste repository).

Bah, humbug :

07 Jan 2014 12:41:09pm

You forgot to mention plant de-commissioning costs. A decade or two of highly intensive work and a helluva lot of money to do so. By the time all costs are factored in nuclear is far from clean, and has an enormous carbon footprint.

misscatherine :

25 Dec 2013 8:14:55pm

Then why is Germany decomissioning all it's nuclear plants? Because it realises it is old technology and the risks are too great and will not go away. They know the build up of toxic waste will be a burden for future generations to have to manage. No one can even guarantee all future generations will have the knowledge, skills, finances to continue to keep the waste secure. Accidents, terrorism or other disaster events would lead to more toxic legacy for future generations. They sensibly think it is better to invest in new technologies.

Greig :

26 Dec 2013 9:50:57am

Germany's current Green/Left political leadership has created an image for itself a pioneer in the green revolution. But its hugely expensive Energiewende has failed to make their energy efficient, nor the environment cleaner.

Germany is overhauling its entire energy infrastructure to embrace renewable energy sources and shutdown nuclear, but in reality coal consumption increased 8 percent in the first half of 2013 as new coal-fired plants are deployed to replace the 18% of Germany's electricity that nuclear currently supplies. Sure Germans are installing rooftop solar panels everywhere but at huge expense, with billions of euros required from the renewable energy surcharge to supply only 5% of Germany's electricity from solar, and the subsidies are tacked directly onto Germans' power bills to subsidize green energy. And energy prices are due to rise again soon, well above the price of French nuclear electricity. Germany's "investment" in new technology is not sensible.

The world has been using nuclear power for 50 years, and the waste generated so far will be "burned" in next generation nuclear reactors making electricity for the next 5000 years. Have faith in the ability and ingenuity of the next generation to leverage the knowledge we already have, and productively use this amazing energy resource which will provide reliable, affordable, clean power for our children and children's children.

Ace21 :

06 Jan 2014 6:45:24pm

Angela Merkal and The Christian Democrats are Green and Left Wing.....LMFAO. Germany is the largest economy in the EU (EU is the largest economy on earth) and the 4th largest after US, China & Japan. 52%of GDP is exported and that includes solar voltaic. Do you think maybe they are onto something?

Rod Adams :

27 Dec 2013 6:28:54pm

Perhaps the reason that Germany is shutting down all of its nuclear plants is that there is more money to be made -- in the immediate future for politically powerful people -- from burning lignite (brown coal) and natural gas imported from Russia.

The German chancellor who initially negotiated the nuclear phase out, Gerhard Schroeder, received a substantial signing bonus from Gazprom, the state-owned natural gas monopoly in Russia within a month after he lost reelection to Angela Merkel. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/09/AR2005120901755.html)

German utilities have recently commissioned several new lignite-fueled power plants that guarantee a market for that dirty, but lucrative, fuel for many decades into the future.

Talk about a burden to future generations; the CO2 produced by burning those fuels will remain in the atmosphere for many centuries. Unlike the byproducts of nuclear power, there is no way to contain the massive quantities of gas without wasting 20-30% of the power produced in the effort to capture and compress the gas for deep underground injection.

Natural gas and coal both suffer routine accidents that actually kill real people occasionally; most of the people who are considered to be casualties of nuclear energy accidents walk around the Earth for many decades before they pass away from diseases that MAY have been caused by the exposure, but are more likely to have been caused by the normal risks of existing.

bonzono :

07 Jan 2014 5:35:58pm

I find your disingenuity here, appalling.

"Unlike the byproducts of nuclear power, there is no way to contain the massive quantities of gas without wasting 20-30% of the power produced in the effort to capture and compress the gas for deep underground injection."

How about we talk about the byproducts of nuclear power?…

Yes, compared to dirty coal, nuclear seems fine.. as long as you don't talk about the vastly greater potential for vastly greater catastrophe. - which of course, you did not.

Nuclear is fine - if you didn't have the co2 intensive mining and processing, the enormous costs in upkeep of the infrastructure, which, lets face it, if you proliferate reactor tech, you also need to proliferate some kind of endurance that the facilities are safe - can you do that? no, you cannot. you cannot ensure the technology you advocate WILL be operated safely, in all cases.

I however, can guarantee a catastrophe if it is not operated safely - and I can also guarantee an accident, leading to a catastrophe. The more facilities that are implemented, the more robust my guarantee becomes, and the more quickly it will occur.

Don't believe me? fine - a quick chat to an actuary will help you understand the probability of an accident, and the magnitude of the damage.

Doc :

06 Jan 2014 12:24:06pm

And, don't forget, Germany has the fallback of buying any extra power it's solar panels don't produce on those cloudy European days from Nuclear power-generating France! You'd be interested to know that France is doing very nicely out of the deal.

Helen :

22 Dec 2013 4:15:42pm

So the IEA finds that nuclear energy is a practical way to provide energy to the world! The dreamland of "renewables" reveals that they are intermittent, very expensive (govt.subsidised) and do not provide baseload power. The more "renewable" is fed into the grid the more unstable it becomes. Nations like China and India are well aware of this and are pressing ahead with nuclear power, while we are wrecking our economy with ever-escalating energy prices.

Peter Cunningham :

24 Dec 2013 8:25:20am

Helen - Please don't take this the wrong way - which means I think you will - but we are on the same page. Our shared concern is the planet on which we live, for pooping in it will do us or all other life on it any good.Please look at the bigger picture, and please take the time to learn what baseload generation really means - and then what topping generators are and how they are used - and then how the excess energy is efficiently used to do utility works in our complex society, and finally the substantial balance - where it is dumped. Once over that hurdle, you might then i9nvestigate the switching and control mechanisms in place, and the problems created when inconsistent / transient power input is added.Yes - I am an engineer.I want to do good - you want to do good, but you and other people like you really need to become more technically informed. Feeling good and espousing 'touchy feely' ideals does vastly more damage than you could imagine.Now! If the ABC could draw on it's vast resources and follow to it's end what I have just stated, and that on the 20th - the world might just be a better place.Sadly - after decades of this sort of dealings I will hold my breath, however I really would enjoy being corrected.Over to you ABC and Helen et al.PC

Peter Cunningham :

24 Dec 2013 8:30:40am

ERRORMy comment was not related to HELEN - she is entirely correct.I clicked on and responded to the wrong comment.Nonetheless, removing "Helen" from that text and the comment is valid.My apologies Helen. PC

Peter Cunningham :

20 Dec 2013 8:12:15pm

NUCLEAR is akin to cars.There are big cars, fast cars, small cars, slow cars - yellow ones and so on. So it is with the dreaded word "Nuclear".Certainly Uranium based Nuclear has it's demonstrated many problems, and features that "Peace Loving Nations" of the world desire. It is no accident that Uranium was preferred, for despite it's relative inefficiencies and large amounts of waste, plutonium is needed to 'blow an aggressor into little bits'. It's absurd!Moving on from the black car in the nuclear carpark, is another Nuclear energy source, and that be Thorium.One would be a fool who would not make self well acquainted with the attributes and functionality of Thorium. Interesting it is to observe amongst 'green' types that the mere mention of "nuclear", the shutters are drawn and locked - therefore part of the problem.But what of people who are truly green and pragmatically seek better forms of Nuclear (that dreaded word) energy source.Only a fool would dismiss a material that is practically non polluting, that cannot practically be used ot make plutonium, that can be used to neutralise batches of existing stockpiles of nuclear waste in literally hours, and which easily accessible known reserves can power the whole world for 18,000 years. But the self-righteous from entrenched positions continue to ignore reality, preferring personal prejudice to reality.So what if we had a broad based emissions tax and put that directly into the development of "Small Modular Reactors" and bring an end to massive and strategically sensitive power stations. No more CO2 emissions, the neutralisation of stockpiles of waste and clean energy for the whole world for more than 18,000 years. That is Valhalla, but 'green' is commonly the very religion that is killing that advancement, preferring fickle and unreliable wind and solar that command vast amounts of natural resources and energy to create, and which only cause control problems in a grid, to ultimately dumped into the ground in order to keep the network functioning. I urge people to learn more of the roll of Thorium and how it is used to create the actual 233 energy source. PC

m cory :

20 Dec 2013 7:38:02pm

im all for nuclear power. we are no longer in the infancy of this technology. the fuel can be used over 7 times before being spent. we are not on a fault line so the dangers associated with what happened in japan are not even an issue. if it was state owned to control charges rather than subsidising manufacturing we could be provided with energy at a price that brings us into line with asian manufacturing costs without reducing base wages and living standards. it does not add to green house gases and with the safety standards and regulations that every industry has to comply with in australia this is the future. it should be now and we all need to keep an open mind. if there was a way to produce renewable environmental energy that kept us competative i would get behind it but at our current level of technology its not an option. we must embrace this, we must be brave enough to say this is the future. i will put my hand up and support nuclear power.

Damien Pyne :

20 Dec 2013 6:42:14pm

Not only are all the previous comments rather valid, they have not even considered the environmental burden of extracting the uranium from the ground and processing it in to a form in which it becomes usable for fission. Not only that, uranium would just become a highly sought after commodity similar to our fossil fuels now. The demand would not cease and hence the mining and processing would not cease. It's not as if once you have a piece of uranium it will generate power indefinitely.

Greig :

23 Dec 2013 10:31:50am

Do proponents of so-called clean, green solar and wind power consider the environmental burden of extracting components of manufacturing from the ground and processing it in to a form in which it becomes usable for energy production - let alone the issues with energy storage (e.g. batteries)? Do they consider that these resources are finite? Do they consider wind and solar power collection devices do not generate power indefinitely, and need to be maintained and replaced?

quokka :

26 Dec 2013 9:57:26am

The most important attribute of nuclear power, and the one that held most promise from the very earliest days is the very high energy density. Properly managed that quality offers the unparalleled potential for the lowest environmental impact of any energy technology. For example with current reactors, 1 tonne of uranium produces about the same amount of energy as 20,000 tonnes of high quality coal. At Gravelines in France there is a nuclear power plant with six 900 MWe reactors. It occupies less than 1 sq km of land. A well sited and well performing wind farm that would produce the same amount of electricity would require 3,000-4,000 sq kms of land.

In some ways we are still at the dawn of the nuclear age and many of the nations with the largest use of nuclear power have on their long term horizon an eventual evolutionary transition to a closed nuclear fuel cycle. Technologies that provide a closed fuel cycle allow for the "burning" of all the uranium (both U235 and U238) in nuclear fuel - not just the U235 (and small amounts of plutonium transmuted from U238) in current "once through" fuel cycle. Such a closed fuel cycle has already been demonstrated at engineering scale at Argonne National Laboratory in the US.

A closed fuel cycle makes far more frugal use of uranium resources than do current light water reactors using perhaps 30 times less uranium than current light water reactors. And it generates proportionately less waste. The environmental impact is tiny - a piece of uranium (or thorium) the size of a golf ball (and producing about the same mass of waste) would provide all the energy needs for one individual at Western consumption levels for a full lifetime. In terms of low environmental impact, no other technology (except possibly future fusion) comes anywhere close.

It would be misleading to suggest that transition to a closed fuel cycle will happen quickly - it will take multiple decades. But there is virtually no doubt that it is quite doable. This is the fundamental reason why uranium resources are not a constraint on the future use of nuclear power. And it is also the reason there are never likely to be any uranium resource wars. It does not seem that there is any resource constraint on significant expansion of nuclear power using current technology at this time, but should such a constraint arise sometime in the future it will be a matter of deploying advanced reactor and fuel cycle technology rather than attempting to extract uranium from reserves of ever decreasing quality. As an added bonus, such advanced technologies will also be capable of "burning" spent fuel from current light water reactors and also depleted uranium. No mining required for that at all.

Paul W :

09 Jan 2014 3:11:09pm

Damien,

You may not be aware of the fact but when put into advanced nuclear - breeder reactors the depleted uranium stock pile and the plutonium stock pile can supply the whole of the Earths energy needs for the next 1,000 years.

Uranium mining only needs to happen for older style nuclear reactors that will be made uncompetitive once the Integrated Fast-breeder Reactors (IFR) style reactors get the nod.

Hob nob :

20 Dec 2013 5:32:39pm

It is ridiculous that we do not have nuclear power in our energy mix in Australia now. Even the most optimistic of energy projections into the future indicate renewables will not produce the base load power required.

Margaret Beavis :

20 Dec 2013 4:07:58pm

It is understandable that the executive director of Uranium for the Minerals Council of Australia has such a bullish view of uranium. It is his job. But in his enthusiasm he glosses over the reality of the nuclear fuel chain.

There are several major issues in addition to the Australian industry failures expounded a couple of days ago in the article by Dave Sweeney.

These include:-Firstly, nuclear power is more expensive than other sources of power, including renewables like wind and solar thermal. Costings presented by the nuclear industry almost always omit the prohibitive costs of insurance ( requiring government subsidies, or government to assume the risk), the massive costs of plant decommissioning and the cost of storing the waste for millenia.-The unsolved issue of waste management. Despite many billions of dollars over 60 years of research, there are still no good solutions. Next generation plants that supposedly consume some of this waste have consistently failed- just look at the history of Monju reactor in Japan.- Nuclear power is not safe. Not only does inevitable human error, corporate failure and regulatory failure mean there will be more meltdowns such as in Chernobyl and Fukushima over time, but also power plants are a potential "dirty bomb" should they be attacked. -Nuclear power plants are also heavily linked to weapons proliferation. The majority of current nuclear weapons states have acquired their bombs under cover of nuclear energy generation. The United Arab Emirates has vast oil and gas reserves and the world's largest solar power plant yet it is building a nuclear power plant. The Middle East does not need any more nuclear weapons states.-Electricity is around a third of Australia's emissions- much more than electricity generation needs to be addressed if climate change is the key concern.- Finally nuclear power plants are too slow too build, with major delays and cost over runs the usual scenario. Renewable energies and energy efficiency hold much greater promise for addressing global emmissions.

Last year the highly respected Economist magazine summed the situation up neatly, with an edition entitled "Nuclear Power- the dream that failed".

quokka :

22 Dec 2013 7:11:16pm

You make many claims and they are just about all wrong.

1. Nuclear power is NOT the most expensive form of electricity generation. Should you doubt this consider the UK where two very large off shore wind projects have just been cancelled because they are not economic (the Argll and Atlantic Arrays). The UK government is offering contract for difference off shore wind strike price 50% higher than the agreed strike price for the Hinkey C nuclear project of about 9 p/kW. The UK Department of Energy and Climate Change assesses nuclear as the lowest cost low emission technology now and for the foreseeable future.

2. The cost of spent fuel management is a small part of the cost of nuclear electricity and most credible authorities these days include these costs in overall cost estimates. In most jurisdictions (including the US, UK and China) operators of new nuclear power plants must pay these costs. This is done by accumulating funds in segregated accounts by means of a small levy on each kWh of electricity generated.

3. Nuclear power is among the safest technologies. Fatalities per unit electricity generated are among the lowest. No air pollution is created in operation. The impact on natural habitat is the smallest of all technologies due to the very small land use. And the full life cycle emissions (ie from construction, decommissioning, uranium mining, refining, enrichment and fuel fabrication) are comparable to those of wind power and less than those of solar PV.

4. There is very little connection between weapons and nuclear electricity generation these days. Light water reactors which comprise the overwhelming majority of the worlds reactor fleet are completely unsuited to producing weapons grade plutonium. They have NEVER been used for this purpose and in all likelihood never will be. Historically weapons grade plutonium was made in special purpose reactors. Today most nuclear armed states have too much weapons grade plutonium and are seeking ways to dispose of it. The UAE project uses light water reactors and will produce vastly more low carbon electricity than the "largest solar plant" in the world.

5. It took France just a little over 20 years to deploy it's reactor fleet. If more countries could achieve the low emissions of France over a 20 year transition, then we should from a climate perspective be very happy about that.

Greig :

23 Dec 2013 6:19:34pm

In addition to Quokka's comments which are 100% correct, a few other points.

Costs of insurance: It is a myth that nuclear reactors are uninsurable. Nearly all nuclear facilities around the world are privately insured. In the US, not a dollar of taxpayers money has been spent on nuclear liability. Even the remediation of TMI ($75M) was fully funded by private insurance.

Storing the waste for millennia is not a requirement (again, another myth), because with the advent of FBRs all long-lived transuranics are consumed as fuel, and only short-lived daughter products require processing and disposal. These typically decay to be less radioactive than the original ore from which they were extracted in only a few centuries.

Monju is only one of 20 fast breeder reactors built, and most have operated successfully and some have produced electricity commercially. All new technologies need to be researched, and to point at one accident (Monju) does not mean the technology is not viable.

To turn a nuclear reactor into a dirty bomb would require massive logistics which could cause far greater damage if used directly on alternative targets. Most reactor containment shells can withstand an aircraft crash, and would almost certainly shutdown automatically if attacked.

If nuclear power ultimately proves to be a "failed dream". then it will be because too many people like Margaret believe the lies and misinformation fed to them by anti-nuclear campaigners.

Greig :

20 Dec 2013 2:05:59pm

Well stated Daniel.

Of course there are those who will vehemently argue that the International Energy Agency is corrupt and subject to nuclear industry lobbying, and that (in fact) 100% renewable energy is the only path we should take. Such elitist arguments (typically from relatively wealthy Westerners with easily available inexpensive energy) are oblivious to the imperatives of reducing energy prices and alleviating global poverty.

Clarke :

21 Dec 2013 12:31:05am

Nice strawman Greig.

So who is going to tell the Aboriginal communities who have no control over uranium mining in their country that they are elitist westerners who have access to unlimited cheap energy and have no idea about poverty.

Greig :

23 Dec 2013 10:15:44am

So are you saying that Aborigines are responsible for the ridiculous notion that 100% renewables is the only path we should take (which was my point above)? Or are you saying that they should have total veto rights over resources which will see millions raised from poverty elsewhere? Or do you think Aboriginal welfare (their poverty) is not being considered with regard to compensation for the use of the their land for resource extraction? Are you saying it is better that Aboriginal poverty being perpetuated by banning uranium mining?

Clarke :

Classic nuke spruiking from Daniel "dig it up" Zavattiero. There is so much sales fluff and breathtaking hypocrisy in this piece that it would take a half-life to address it properly

For example, despite the wafer-thin anecdotal mentions of a few contrarians, opposition to nuclear power remains high around the world. One word: Fukushima. Quote some real research if you dare.

But in order to really understand this piece, let's focus on these words: "And in the final scenario - which assumes the world takes radical action on climate change".

Now, we know that the Minerals Council of Australia effectively promotes the "do nothing" position on climate change. i.e. carbon price = Bad, wait for rest of world/Godot = Good. And we know that behind this veneer the MCA are chock full of climate change denialists.

So, those 15 little words provide the subtext of Daniel's little sales spiel: the MCA will oppose all action to price carbon because it threatens the coal industry; but in the unlikely event that, Koch Brothers forbid, the MCA's heavy spending and lobbying against action on climate change fails and there is some global consensus, the MCA has a back-up plan: yellowcake.

So, Dan, where Ziggy failed to drum up support for white elephant never-never power stations, it looks like it's your job to sell the nuclear lies to people younger than 40. You might start with: "it's safe", then "too cheap to meter". Good luck with that.

Greig :

22 Dec 2013 8:18:01am

Clarke’s view that the MCA is holding an hypocritical position on climate change and uranium mining ignores the final paragraphs of the article which observes that the nuclear industry's opponents “are being over-run by the inexorable economics of the world's energy needs.” The world does not have the luxury of naively picking 100% renewables as an answer. And it hasn’t, with 60 reactors under construction, the world has already made up its mind to continue to grow the nuclear energy generation base. The MCA position as far from hypocritical, it embraces reality, as evidenced by the International Energy Agency’s projections for future growing use of nuclear power.

People over the age of forty grew up during the Cold War, and were exposed to the anti-nuclear hysteria , and the lies and propaganda from green groups that it inspired. People younger than 40 have the opportunity to view nuclear power more rationally, and to see its place in the energy mix that they and their offspring will need to be prosperous over the 21st century.

Nick :

06 Jan 2014 12:59:36pm

The logic here is really funny - even if we accept that renewables are more expensive than nuclear. 1) There might be no world that humans can inhabit UNLESS we pick 100% renewables and no mitigation of that risk should be acceptable. 2) Economics that serve to destroy the world serve nobody in the long term: the longer we delay moving to renewables, the greater number of lives that will be lost. 2) The world doesn't have a mind. The world has individuals and corporations that can make a choice based on new evidence. In any long-term scenario, the "economic" argument of NOT going 100% renewable is self-defeating.

James Murphy :

23 Dec 2013 2:42:11am

So, what do you expect from the Minerals Council exactly? They are allowed to have, and state their obviously biased views, just as much as any other organisation is. There's no law which says you must agree with them, and thankfully, there's no law which stops them from expressing themselves either, though, it seems you'd be one of those people who'd be quite keen on silencing any views which are contrary to your own.

It's strange that you don't complain about equally obvious bias from environmental lobby groups, which are also equally allowed to publicly state their position. I don't agree with everything the MCA says, and nor do i agree with everything that environmental groups say. Both are biased, and it's up to any individual to find out for themselves where the middle ground lies.

The UK is definitely building more nuclear power plants (not replacements, but increasing capacity).

Japan has massively increased their CO2 emissions because they've replaced nuclear with gas. Should they have kept their people and industry with limited electricity while they build solar/wind facilities? Would you support the closure of the Lucas Heights reactor, which generates radioisotopes for medical purposes, not just for Australia, but for the region? Surely that's polluting, and bad as well?

Your name-calling and petty little conspiracy theories just show how little substance you can contribute to this argument. Coal exports from Australia increase every year (roughly by 7%, check the BREE figures), and have done so, even under Labor, the government which carried on about moral challenges and the like, whilst approving coal developments willy nilly. Your obvious political bias is indeed part of the problem this country has, not the solution. I hope for your sake, you one day manage to have some objectivity and realise it's not a Labor, or Liberal problem, it's a fundamental problem with the types of people who seek power via politics.

Jimmy of Melbourne :

20 Dec 2013 11:06:54am

Does anyone else think that the Executive Director of the Minerals Council of Australia may have some vested financial interests in the expansion of the uranium industry? In the past few years we have seen some of the horrific costs and consequences of Australia's uranium trade. I visited Fukushima last year and the farmers and local people I spoke with there, many of whom had been forced into temporary housing shelters, certainly had no doubt that nuclear power was a blight on their very existence and livelihoods. Then last week in the Northern Territory we read about another disaster - this time at ERA's Ranger uranium mine, where toxic sludge has leaked into the local environment literally 'sickening' the local indigenous community there. This is an industry propped up by greedy propagandists like the author, more concerned with their own financial returns than the impacts of this dirty trade on the environment, people and places.The future must be safe, clean & renewable if we are to have a future at all. And that starts with each one of lowering our own personal consumption levels - not blindly embracing dangerous and dirty technologies like nuclear to attempt to answer the current climate crisis.

Greig :

22 Dec 2013 8:22:15am

There is no doubt that some Japanese farmers, though they have been financially compensated, have nevertheless been inconvenienced. This is not reason enough to deny 1 billion people access to affordable electricity and the opportunity to overcome poverty. In fact such a position is morally bankrupt.

Further, it is wrong to claim that "toxic sludge has leaked into the local environment" at Ranger. And the notion that this is literally sickening the local indigenous community there is deliberately disingenuous, as the locals have not been harmed in any way except by being exposed to the lies and irrational fears of anti-nuclear campaigners.

MD :

03 Jan 2014 9:28:13am

You're ignoring that it was unintentional and either unforeseen or the risk ignored or unmitigated. That's why nuclear isn't a safe option. Catastrophic failure of any other generation facility is localized and transient, radioactive failure is neither. That this one wasn't disastrous is a happy accident that the industry can take no credit for.

Ben :

20 Dec 2013 11:03:24am

Hmmm. Executive Director of Uranium for the Minerals Council of Australia.... very very objective view no doubt.

A national inquiry into the uranium industry that would examine the domestic and international implications and impacts of Australia’s uranium trade. It is by no means clear that the industry’s meagre economic benefits outweigh its unresolved problems and risks to environmental and public health, proliferation, safety and security and more.

The Australian uranium sector remains a contested and controversial one that continues to lack a secure social license. At best, the industry is and will remain a minor contributor to national economic activity, however it poses significant domestic and international risks and threats. The need to manage radioactive materials over extremely long periods and specific security and proliferation issues make uranium mining fundamentally different from other types of mining and requires a higher level of assessment, scrutiny and options for redress. There is a need to review the operations and impacts of this sector, particularly in the shadow of Fukushima - a continuing nuclear crisis directly fuelled by Australian uranium. A national inquiry into the domestic and international costs and benefits of Australia’s uranium trade would be a mature and timely way to identify and address these important and unresolved issues.

Dave Sweeney :

20 Dec 2013 10:40:33am

If you believe your rhetoric Daniel then do two simple things (i) publicly support an independent national inquiry into the Australian uranium industry (ii) and publicly support legislative change to give all Aboriginal communities a right of veto over uranium proposals on their country. If you really believe the industry stacks up you would have nothing to fear from either action. So I will watch and cross my fingers, but given the uranium sectors preferred mode of spin before substance I won't hold my breath.And just two of many needed points of clarification: every mainstream environment group in Australia opposes nuclear power because of the sectors high cost, high risk and clear links with increased nuclear insecurity - and unlike that of renewables - nuclear powers role in the global energy mix is steadily shrinking.

Greig :

22 Dec 2013 8:24:58am

Certainly mainstream environment groups in Australia oppose nuclear power for the reasons that Dave Sweeney states. Yet their position is not based on current facts, which are (1) nuclear power is not high cost, it is far more cost effective than renewables, and in many countries (e.g. France and Canada) successfully competes commercially with fossil fuels (2) nuclear power is the safest form of energy generation technology, with a lower mortality rate /kWh than solar and wind power, (3) civil nuclear power production is entirely unrelated to weapons production, and (4) use of nuclear power around the world is growing, and continues to produce an order of magnitude more energy than solar and wind power combined.

Further it must be obvious to all that with nuclear supplying 17% of the world’s electricity, that any action Australia took on uranium mining would have zero impact on overall nuclear energy use – opportunities would simply pass to other uranium suppliers (e.g. Africa and Canada). Dave Sweeney argues for an independent industry review, but to be fair perhaps mainstream environment groups like the ACF should be subject to independent inquiry to determine why they are so keen to allow uranium mining opportunities to go to foreign countries.

Peter of Melbourne :

22 Dec 2013 7:29:30pm

"ignoring the fact that aussie uranium fuelled the fukushima disaster"what a stupid statement, you may as well claim:"aussie uranium fueled the tectonic shift that resulted in the devastating earthquake and resulting tidal wave"

"but don't take my word for it, look at the market: uranium is rubbish right now"we have new as well as our traditional markets for our yellowcake and our exports are expanding, it is only the japanese who are decommissioning and they are now commissioning coal fired plants as replacements since that is the only viable alternative baseload power supply not airy fairy magical green power.try using facts as the basis for your arguments not baldfaced lies/falsehoods

JoeBloggs :

20 Dec 2013 10:23:28am

"THE SMALL NUMBER OF Australians vehemently opposed to uranium mining and nuclear power"

The 2007 McNair Gallup Poll showed that 53% of Australians polled opposed nuclear power in Australia, with 6% not sure. That would mean that approximately 12,357,392 Australians oppose nuclear power in Australia. Not a small number by any means.

As for the IAEA it is specifically tasked with promoting the use of nuclear power, ie. for the IAEA site "The Agency works with its Member States and multiple partners worldwide to promote safe, secure and peaceful nuclear technologies".

"it is affordable zero emissions base load energy that is readily available to help drive growth and economic prosperity around the world" - Rubbish. It is very expensive, must be subsidised heavily by the taxpayer, is uninsurable, the taxpayers much clear up all the consequences of accidents, negligence and stupidity, the issue of waste disposal hasn't been in anyway dealth with (the largest repository in the world in the USA is still leaking (for years now) into the wider environment, Eastern Europe and Japan are dealing with the impact of nuclear industry failures, Japan has decades of work to deal with their negligent behaviour (that is ongoing) and is currently attempting to avert a much larger disaster at Fukushima as they attempt to safely deal with the vast amount of spent fuel sitting in open pools that are damaged.

We have heard from the IAEA and nuclear industry for decades that the industry is completely safe and that they have everything covered. But the reality is the nuclear industry is fundamentally unsafe and replete with profit focused corporations prepared to routinely undertake negligent behaviour in order to maximise shareholder returns at the expense of non shareholders.

Greig :

22 Dec 2013 8:26:41am

The 2009 McNair Gallup Poll showed that 43% of Australians polled opposed nuclear power in Australia, and 49% in favour. Based on that, apparently Australian support for nuclear power is in majority and growing.

Further nuclear power is much cheaper than renewable energy (about half the price) as evidenced in a recent AEMO study. Also it is a myth that nuclear power plants are uninsurable - most reactors around the world are privately covered by insurance pools and shared liability, e.g. US taxpayers do not pay for nuclear reactor insurance, it is covered by the Price Anderson Act. The TMI accident remediation costs ($75M) were fully covered by private insurance. And Fukushima continues to demonstrate that nuclear engineering is mature, and that even the worst natural disasters can be overcome, protecting the population from harm, with the WHO declaring that in Japan, “no observable increases in cancer rates above baseline rates are anticipated.”

It would seem that the IAEA and nuclear industry are correct in declaring the nuclear industry is safe and completely covered, and the Australian population is steadily coming to that realisation too, that for decades they have been hoodwinked by the anti-nuclear campaigners with lies and propaganda.

Peter of Melbourne :

22 Dec 2013 7:46:20pm

2007 McNair Gallup Poll showed that 53% of Australians polled opposed nuclear power in AustraliaThe only polls that matter in this country are Federal/State elections or referendum/plebiscites. Not these little polls that only sample a negligible proportion of the citizens of this country with leading questions put forward at the behest of special interest groups. Try the question - which do you prefer for australia's future energy needs: nuclear power or coal power. They are the only two viable options. Joe you continually whine in all the forums that CO2 "pollution" is killing the globe so you should have no objections to nuclear power since it is the lesser of two evils, and that is the choice we have to make. Kind of like the last Federal election when your beloved Labor were relegated to trash heap of history as they deserved.

" the issue of waste disposal hasn't been in anyway dealth with"The continent of Australia with most of its landmass uninhabitable can quite easily set aside a few hundred square metres to build a nuclear repository even if the tiny left wing loony brigade object. At the end of the day our entire society's needs outweigh the flawed morals of the few.

"Fukishima" that old strawman argument again.Japan sits on the Ring of Fire, the most tectonically active region of the globe. I am surprised they did not experience a catastrophic earthquake and/or tidal wave earlier than this since it was inevitable.Now explain to us how the most geologically stable landmass on the planet, Australia, should be scared of a similar event since the only major earthquake we have had in the last 100 years was Newcastle.

As with your continual global warming scaremongering, and how australia is responsible for the rest of the worlds behaviour, your arguments are baseless rubbish.

Jim Green :

20 Dec 2013 10:02:37am

Ben Heard one of the industry's former "bitter enemies"? He never once invested a few minutes writing a letter to the editor opposing the industry; he never once invested a few seconds writing an anti-nuclear comment on any of the ubiquitous online fora; and he consults for the uranium industry.John Borshoff, head of Australian-based uranium miner Paladin Energy, noted earlier this year that "the uranium industry is definitely in crisis".Globally, nuclear power suffered a 7% drop in 2012, it's worst every year, with 17 countries reducing nuclear generation. This year things have only got worse for the industry. In the US, not only are new reactor projects being cancelled, but a growing number of existing reactors are being shut down.

Adam :

It bears reminding that any and all ionising radiation exposure due to the nuclear industry can only ever be additional to natural background sources, with its health effects being cumulative.

Make no mistake, this climate-nuclear "debate" is a distraction: the nuclear industry resides on mining and military interests. The weapons came first. Via expertise, research, infrastructure and nuclear fuels, nuclear remains the ONLY energy sector with repeatedly proven direct and indirect links with nuclear weapons - the use of a fraction of which would also risk a dire climate change.

Real energy solutions are abundant and comprise, foremost, energy efficiency measures (huge potential: how much water did you boil for your cuppa this morning?) and a combination of sustainable, far safer - and decentralised - renewables.

And it goes without saying that NO energy source can address the 66 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions that don't stem from generating electricity anyway.

Peter of Melbourne :

The only reason uranium beat out thorium was due to the simple fact that uranium can be weaponised whereas thorium cannot.

There is 4x more thorium on the planet than uranium with no reason it should not be used in reactors, in point of fact thorium reactors produce markedly less waste than uranium reactors.

As for your real energy solutions being abundant... you fail to mention any of these wonderful airy fairy Green solutions like the rest of your ilk. A modern 1st world society requires a viable baseload powersupply not silly little fantasies. Coal or nuclear - they are the only two options whether you and your ilk like it or not.

Greig :

23 Dec 2013 8:54:47am

Peter,

The viability of thorium as a fuel has nothing to do with weapons. It is a matter of cost of fuel fabrication - which to this day is still problematic and uranium has the economic edge. Although there is some promising R&D which suggests a breakthrough is imminent.

Otherwise your view on "airy fairy Green solutions" is spot on. The anti-nukers think we are going to power the world on their wishful thinking.

James Murphy :

23 Dec 2013 3:13:15am

Actually, the climate change you talk of, has always been called a "Nuclear winter" because of the supposed cooling effect the airborne particulates would have, so, maybe, to counteract this global warming, we do need to set off a few bombs somewhere?

I don't understand what the problem is with a link between nuclear energy and nuclear weapons. You make it sound like it's a great revelation that uranium can be used for power, and for weapons. Hate to say it, but that's been known by a lot of people for a very very long time, and is no mystery.

Yes, nuclear weapons are indeed bad, and shouldn't be used, but then, what do you think powers a conventional military force? Unicorn rainbows??

quokka :

23 Dec 2013 8:17:45am

The average contribution to radiation dose from the full nuclear fuel cycle worldwide is tiny - much less than 0.1% increase. For an authoritative source see UNSEAR (United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation) 2008 report - Sources and Effects of Ionizing Radiation. It is completely insignificant compared to the average dose due to medical procedures.

Natural background radiation varies considerably by region around the world. For example in Cornwall in the UK, it is nearly three times the world average. However epidemiological studies have repeatedly failed to find health ill effects from these naturally higher levels. Any contribution from the nuclear fuel cycle is minuscule and for all practical purposes irrelevant compared to these natural variations.

Those who like to think of themselves as environmentalists need to be mature enough to seek out the scientific evidence on harm to both humans and the broader environment. We have too many very real and very pressing environmental issues to waste time and energy chasing phantoms promoted by fear mongering.

The climate-nuclear debate is very much based in reality. After hydro, nuclear is the largest source of low emission electricity and much more important that all other sources put together. That's the facts. It's proven and it works and it's the only reliable 24/7 baseload technology that has any realistic prospect of scaling sufficiently to have a serious impact on the climate problem. Nuclear is a direct substitute for coal but without all the detrimental effects of coal. Without nuclear, fossil fuels will deliver the baseload power, perhaps slightly mitigated by burning vast amounts of biomass from trees or huge areas of land covered by crops destined to be burned. This is an ugly environmental prospect.

Christina Macpherson :

20 Dec 2013 9:19:28am

Well, not having read that 687 page two kilogram report, I guess I am amongst that indeterminate number of ignorami who worry about:Fukushuma's continuing radiation disasterUSA's critical problem of radioactive trash, and its closing down of nuclear reactorsthe spread of nuclear weapons the reality that nuclear facilities, transport of nuclear materials pose a target for terroriststhe escalating expense of nuclear power , (as exemplified in the UK's current nuclear funding messthe delay factor meaning that nuclear will have little or no impact on climate changeAll these problems make nuclear power as climate solution look like advocating a heroin habit as cure for a cigarette habit.And - I haven't even mentioned the falling costs of renewable energy, and the relative speed of setting it up.

Peter of Melbourne :

22 Dec 2013 8:00:52pm

You havent mentioned the toxic waste, mainly heavy metals, involved in producing much of your wonderful Green energy and how it destroys the environment where you wonderful Green energy components are manufactured. But hey, Out of sight, out of mind... Its a Chinese problem, not ours as their rivers are poisoned... The official Xinhua news agency said about 100,000kg of dead fish had been cleared from 25 miles of the river but did not cite a figure for the number of fish... Feel like a hypocrite yet

James Murphy :

23 Dec 2013 3:04:38am

It's nice of you to be concerned about the expense of nuclear power in other countries, I hope you donate money to help them out.

The UK is building more reactors actually…

As for terrorist targets, well, any power generation facility is a target, and always will be, not to mention that terrorists of various sorts have been around for a long time before 2001. Major accidents have, so far, been caused by the people, or the equipment at the power plants, not by terrorists. I don't discount the use of dirty bombs as a relatively cheap 'nuclear' weapon, but to stop a whole industry based on the threat of terrorism is just admitting that the terrorists have won.

As for the the falling costs, and relative speed of seeing them up, then, can you explain why Japan went straight to gas as a replacement for nuclear? (with commensurate rises in CO2 emissions). Surely, if they were to be nice global citizens, they'd have built renewable energy infrastructure instead, seeing as how it's apparent so rapid and cheap? No doubt thats "different" and excusable somehow??

As I've mentioned elsewhere on here, Lucas Heights generates nuclear waste, but it also generates radioisotopes for medicinal purposes (amongst other things). Would you shut that down because of the potential terror threat, and waste generation?

Barry :

20 Dec 2013 8:49:36am

The Minerals Council of Australia is moving increasingly towards the extreme in its promotion of its interests. This is an organisation that, in spite of the enormous scientific evidence for anthropogenic-caused climate change, continues to advocate massive expansion of coal exports while hedging its bets by pleading that we must embrace nuclear power - the most insidiously dangerous of all forms of energy generation. It is difficult to see how they can remain so vocal about these energy options while having their heads-in-the-sand about the enormous and growing jobs potential of renewable energy in this country.

Random :

20 Dec 2013 11:43:59pm

I agree with you, Barry. But there is always a neutral way of solving the problems. We couldn't stop every conventional gas use immediately while utilising nuclear power, and vice versa. I'm not sure whether MCA is doing the good thing. How and what can we do to live safely in the world? We've already changed the Earth and gained benefits from it. We can do nothing but waiting for death.Trying to make our life better that is what this organisation doing.In the end, everyone would realise that they couldnt do anything beacause they are only human.

Greig :

23 Dec 2013 8:04:35am

Barry,

Whilst there is strong evidence for AGW, there is little evidence that AGW will be worse for the world than a failure to raise the global population from poverty. And that is why the developing world continues build cheap coal plants and buy our cheap coal. It is not the MCA that is expanding our coal exports, it is demand from developing countries, and it is they who you must appeal to if you want to reduce global CO2 emissions. You must convince them that they must remain poor.

Further, MCA is not pleading with us to embrace nuclear power. That would be pointless since it is not Australia's choice whether the world uses nuclear power. The MCA simply, correctly advise us that the world is advancing its use of nuclear power, and that Australia should supply uranium or it will be sourced from elsewhere.

You argue that nuclear is "insidiously dangerous", however in fact it is demonstrably the safest of all available power sources (including solar and wind). Whilst Chernobyl and Fukushima evoke an irrational fear, the evidence for nuclear power's relative safety lies in the overwhelming scientific evidence of mortality figures. The word "insidious" is better directed at those who would lie to you, and insist that the world use more dangerous technologies.

ziggy :

31 Dec 2013 9:27:09am

"insidious" - ( australian oxford dictionary ) - proceeding or progressing inconspicuously but harmfully..being used to describe radioactive products of nuclear fission "finding their way" into the food chain " inconspicuously" and tumours growing in humans as a result of the ingestion of those products.. ..sounds like a correct use of the word.. luckily for the nuclear industry tumours don't name their source when they are removed from the human body.. and the AMA advise their members not to comment on these "complex" issues.. when you and your friends finally convince the majority of zombie voters that nuclear is the "safer" way to go.. i hope you are ready to store the waste on your property.. and have your family members... trying to repair & maintain the facilities, that have been built to a "price", when they inevitably break down.. ... there are no "independent" experts in Australia for our present Major Hazard Facilities.. the people installed as auditors are stooges for the industry they audit.. anyone who questions the status quo is "re educated " or moved on.. as if any one who has studied nuclear physics and has a " hands on " knowledge of nuclear reactors, sufficient to audit the industry.. could ever be "independent " ...dream on.. it would be like asking the church to oversee the abuse by its own members.. even if it were possible to truthfully and accurately compare deaths per kilowatt hour and prove that nuclear was "relatively" safer.. you would still need to accept that there is no "independent" body to oversee these facilities and you would be placing the burden of discovering a new technology to deal with your waste onto your children and their children..sounds pretty gutless to me...but maybe that is the way you do things in your family... take the "easy " option now ....and pass the " insidious" consequences on to the next generation..

pilotyoda :

10 Jan 2014 1:09:36pm

It is a pity these posts occured before new Years day. When the Fukishima (continuous) meltdown has caused a "dirty" nuclear explostion underground and dumped massive contaminates into the atmosphere and the underground aquifers. After initial reports of contamination reaching the US reporting there has been balcked out.

A previous writer here said the power plants can withstand a direct hit from a plane. Fukishima got hit by a wave. Not broken by the earthquake! A 911-type plane strike would be disasterous.

And while some N-power plants are insured they are unserwritten by tax payers. Check any policy in the world for normal commercial or private insurance, including your own, and you will find damage caused by nuclear anything is completely uninsurable. Full Stop. Remember, insurance companies are very good at assessing risk on small and large scales.

While power generation from N-power stations is cheap per Kw, the overall cost of the completed facility is not. Every Nuclear power generation facility in the world is heavily subsidised by gevernments from taxpayer money, followed next by coal. By comparison, renewables get little overall subsidy.

You (and a few others here) criticise "greenies" for not being up to speed with developments in the nuclear industry you are also not up to speed with baseload abilities of renewable energy sources. And despite asurances by some that breeder reactors use less fuel and produce less waste there are few in use and we still haven't dealt with the waste we have. Given half lives of 100k-500k years we have NO engineering solutions to deal with this stuff over that perid of time. Even pyramids are only 5k years old! Of course, Nobody wants it transported anywhere through their area.

Subscribe

How Does this Site Work?

This site is where you will find ABC stories, interviews and videos on the subject of Environment. As you browse through the site, the links you follow will take you to stories as they appeared in their original context, whether from ABC News, a TV program or a radio interview. Please enjoy.

Best of abc.net.au

Shaping from the soul

For Murray 'Muzza' Bourton, surfing is a 'drug' and surfboard shaping is a lifestyle.